We are in trouble when it buys Airborne and Water transport.

> Let me spell it out for you: if your file is on Dropbox, then a properly worded warrant
> needs to be served to Dropbox, and they'll allow searches and copies of anything
> their hard drives contain.

Let me spell it out for you. You're safe outside. If anyone attacks or robs you, they'll be breaking the law.

And about 1 in 1000 actors succeed and become movie stars.

It takes hard work, connections- and a lot of luck.

Unless you have all three, you lose.

Your story is atypical.

Because they hadn't thought of advertising when computers were invented.

By the time phones came around- ads were in the revenue model for web apps.

By parallel, you can't use many web sites without turning on the advertising.

At least for now, there are no ads when I'm using my phone simply as a phone.

I don't see this lawsuit having any last effects. Most users will install an app after being informed the app needs "Advertising" and "User data transmission" permissions.

That is flat freaking amazing. NASA does some pretty cool stuff, but I can't help but wonder how many billions it would have cost taxpayers for them to manage development of technology like that? It's hard not to see NASA as an organization with its best days well behind it.

Personally, I choose to make that trade only with Google. One company has my profile, and in exchange I get many services.

You can't really be that naive are you? When Google has your data, Google's business partners have it too (part or parcel), the law can have it through subpoenas, the NSA... just about everybody.

Besides, I suspect Google uses the data in ways I don't want it to be used. So even if it was the sole guardian of it, I don't want to give it to them. Not willingly anyway, and as little as possible when I don't have the choice - and people have less and less choice as days go by in the matter.

The headline and opening doesn't make it clear, but they're specifically talking about online harassment.

Trolls will target anything and everything about you.
Gender just gives them extra ammunition.

Apparently on RTF, it says that the inventor retains IP rights.

IN that case.. never mind. :)

A million dollars would be chump change.

Mirrors are cheap, it's the several acres of tracking mechanisms which the mirrors are mounted to that are expensive.

The idea is, if the steam generator requires less concentrated light, you can save money on the solar tracking mechanisms, which lowers the final cost of each solar array.

I'd be interested in code snippets that are shared by all the canvas fingerprinting implementations and unique to canvas draw.
I could nuke any script with that code and never think about it again.

There's another kind of scientist?

Israel bulldozes Palestinian homes and builds settlements, Hamas fires rockets into Israel.
"Both sides" is usually a shitty argument to make, but in this case, both sides have been aggressors for decades.

If it wasn't complicated, we'd have peace by now.

A few States tried it too. And they succeeded

Georgia: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/
Arizona: http://business.time.com/2012/06/14/the-fiscal-fallout-of-state-immigration-laws/
Alabama: http://business.time.com/2012/06/14/the-fiscal-fallout-of-state-immigration-laws/
Indiana: I couldn't find a decent article specifically about Indiana, but it's the same story.

The good news is that by shooting themselves in the foot, Georgia, Arizona, Alabama, and Indiana provided a wonderful example of what not to do. All the other States that were thinking about passing similar laws... didn't. Or they exempted farm and maid labor, which more or less undercuts the core purpose of such laws.

That's not true.

This is how congress used to work.

2000's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370 to 20 (192D, 177R, 1 I voted yes)
10 republicans and 10 democrats voted no.

1990's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370-37
Mixture of both parties for.

1980's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
313-70 (47 abs)
Mixture of both parties for, against, and abstaining.

https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
269-62 (83 not voting- members of both parties)
173D, 96R voting for. Some D and R both voting against.

This is how it has worked since Cantor and the republican party decided to vote no to everything.
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
214-218- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D voting against.

Defense appropriations..
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
235 to 193- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D (17) voting against.

---

As I quote above- the republicans we already quoted as intending to vote no to everything. To be against everything the president was for.

The republicans are not negotiating.

In the budget fight, the republicans asked for 85% spending cuts, 15% tax increases. The democrats offered 87% spending cuts, 17% tax increases. The republicans then counter proposed 100% spending cuts and 0% tax increases, rejecting their OWN budget proposals for christ's sake.

It's insane. It is not the way the country was run from 1978 to 2008.

If you sincerely believe this- then it's going to be very difficult to change your mind since you will weight the facts supporting your belief heavily while discounting facts contrary to your beliefs.

So I'm done. You asked- and I gave you details. Direct quotes from the leader of the house and senate republicans stating they were going to vote no to everything.

Then you listed the congressional site and I responded with additional support showing bi partisan voting prior to 2008. It's your choice to process them or ignore them.

Cheers.